A campaign of deception or ignorance?

In the first part of our look at the controversial theory of man-made global warming the issues presented by both those who believe in this theory - the Scaremongers - and those who don't - the Idealists - were analyzed and compared. Looking at the Scaremonger's position the question needs to be asked: are they scientifically ignorant, or are they engaged in deception?

Better quality data needed before a trend can determined.

The whole position and argument put forward by the 'Yes' case to support their position comes from data collected over the past 50 years. This data is then compared with data collected since the 1890s - when climatic data first became of interest to scientists - and from the changes a wholly unrealistic assumption is made.

There are two major issues with this:

Firstly, the instruments and equipment used today to measure such factors as air temperature, sea temperature etc. are considerably more accurate than those in use 50 years ago, let alone 110 years ago. So that raises the question - how accurate is any data collected more than 10 years ago? The 'Yes' case needs to clarify this point.

The second issue concerns the number of years over which the current data has been collected. 110 years may provide a start, but it's nowhere near long enough from which to predict the future. Realistically though, 110 years in comparison to the scientifically recognized age of the earth being - 4.5 billion years - is meaningless.

To get a valid and significant understanding of the recent changes in the worlds' temperature - if indeed there has been any abnormal changes - and to try to determine future trends in the area of climate change, the absolute minimum period from which such data is collected should be no less than a thousand years.

Of course this is not possible, but it doesn't give the 'Yes' case the right to give credibility to the limited data they have by suggesting something that can't be proven. All this approach does is give ammunition to the emotionally immature.

Whilst all of this may point to an incorrect and highly contentious interpretation of the available facts, the role of the UN could be considered as blatant deception.

The role of the UN in this deception.

Recent reports issued by the UN's committee on climate change laid the blame for this perceived problem clearly at the feet of the industrial western world. Two reports presented in early 2007 pointed to the damage being caused by industrial pollution leading to an increase in greenhouse gases, and an imbalance between the CO2 and oxygen in the worlds' atmosphere. The UN said quite clearly that this problem was caused by the ever-increasing expansion of industrial activity by the established western nations and the emerging industrial countries, notably China and India.

The other factors that could be responsible for this atmospheric imbalance - factors that could have a profound influence - were not mentioned at all or were given little attention.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next